Stanley Milgram --- Obedience to Authority Studies

1
Stanley Milgram --- Obedience to Authority
Studies Influence (e.g., Anthologies, Intro.
Social texts, Media coverage ...)
2
What was the basic procedure and finding of
Milgrams study?

• Procedure
• Supposed random assignment to be either the
  "learner" or the "administrator"
• (shocker)
• Read from the list of word pairs and determine
  if the answer from the "learner" is correct.
• If answer is incorrect, the administrator has
  to shock the learner starting at 15 volts and
  going up at 15 volt increments (i.e., 15, 30, 45,
  60, 75, 90 ..) Generator volts ranged form 15 to
  450 (XXX Danger)
• Participants given a sample shock of 45 volt
• Overall Finding 65 of participants shocked
  to the very end

3
What were the predictions regarding the rate of
obedience?
"Before the experiments, I sought predictions
about the outcome from various kinds of people --
psychiatrists, college sophomores, middle-class
adults, graduate students and faculty in the
behavioral sciences. With remarkable similarity,
they predicted that virtually all the subjects
would refuse to obey the experimenter. The
psychiatrist, specifically, predicted that most
subjects would not go beyond 150 volts, when the
victim makes his first explicit demand to be
freed. They expected that only 4 percent would
reach 300 volts, and that only a pathological
fringe of about one in a thousand would
administer the highest shock on the board".
(Milgram, 1974)
Why were these people so wrong in their
predictions?
Tendency to minimize the role of situational
forces in influencing human behavior ---
It is surprising how difficult it is for people
to keep situational forces in mind, as they seek
a totally personalistic interpretation of
obedience, divorced from the specific situational
pressures acting on the individual (Milgram,
1974). The social psychology of this century
reveals a major lesson often it is not so much
the kind of person a man is as the kind of
situation in which he finds himself that
determines how he will act. (Milgram, 1974)
4
Some Relevant Quotes
Any interpretation involving the attackers
strong sadistic impulses is inadequate. There is
no evidence that the majority of those who
participated in such killings is sadistically
inclined (Kelman, Hamilton, 1989, p.13,
regarding the My Lai massacre)
After witnessing hundreds of ordinary persons
submit to authority in our own experiments, I
must conclude that Arendts conception of evil
comes closer to the truth than one might dare
imagine (Milgram, 1967). In 1963, Arendt wrote
about Eichmann in Jerusalem A Report on the
Banality of Evil. She said, The trouble with
Eichmann was precisely that so many were like
him, and that the many were neither perverted nor
sadistic, that they were, and still are, terrible
and terrifyingly normal
5
Methodological Weaknesses of Milgrams Initial
Obedience Study?

• No manipulated variables
• No control condition
• No theoretically derived hypotheses
• No specific predictions Paper rejected
  twice JPSP and Journal of Personality

6
The 4 Prods
7
EXPERIMENT VARIATION RESULTS
1 thru 4 Proximity 1st Study 65 Closer to victim - Less obedience
5 Heart Problem 65 Obedience
7 Closeness of authority (orders given over the phone) 22 Obedience
8 Females as subjects 65 Obedience (less predicted)
10 Downtown site 48 Obedience
13 Ordinary person issues commands (experimenter had to leave) 20 Obedience (4/20 )
13a Accomplice assumes role of shocker subject as "bystander" 69 allowed obedience
17 2 peers (one administrator, one recordkeeper) Subject as shocker One peer rebels (at 150 level) 10 Obedience
When an individual wishes to stand in opposition to authority, he does best to find support for his position from others in his group. The mutual support provided by men for each other is the strongest bulwark we have against the excesses of authority. --- (Milgram, 1974) When an individual wishes to stand in opposition to authority, he does best to find support for his position from others in his group. The mutual support provided by men for each other is the strongest bulwark we have against the excesses of authority. --- (Milgram, 1974) When an individual wishes to stand in opposition to authority, he does best to find support for his position from others in his group. The mutual support provided by men for each other is the strongest bulwark we have against the excesses of authority. --- (Milgram, 1974)
18 2 peers (one administrator, one recordkeeper) Subject as shocker Both peers keep obeying 93 Obedience
8
Some Questions About the Meaning of Milgrams
Findings
Why did the participants in Milgrams study shock
the victim at such high levels?

• Some Key Factors
• Time constraints
• No communication/Limited information
• Step by step increases in shock levels
  (gradual nature)
• Legitimate Authority/State of agency
  (others are responsible)

Men who are in everyday life responsible and
decent were seduced by the trappings of
authority, by the control of their perceptions,
and by the uncritical acceptance of the
experimenter's definition of the situation, into
performing harsh acts. A substantial proportion
of people do what they are told to do,
irrespective of the content of the act and
without limitations of conscience, so long as
they perceive that the command comes from a
legitimate authority (Milgram, 1965).
9
Describe the recruitment procedure used by Burger
(2009)
10
Describe the study procedure used by Burger (2009)

• Generally, the same as Milgram (e.g., confederate
  learner, random assignment to conditions,
  word-pair test, confederate with heart condition,
  volts ranged from 15-450 volts)
• Told 3 times they could withdraw at any time
  (twice in writing) with
• Sample shock was 15 volts not 45
• Use of 4 prods when reluctance occurred
• Stopped at 150 volts (79 of Milgrams
  participants who reached this level went to the
  end)
• Debriefing done immediately after study ended
• Use of a modeled-refusal condition (confederate
  stops at 90 volts after use of
• prod)

11
(Burger, 2009) What of people obeyed to the 150
shock level? What was the effect of having
someone disobey (a model)?
12
(Burger, 2009) What role did gender play in
obedience rates?
13
What effect did personality scores have on
obedience?
14
Questions (cont.)
Can Milgrams findings be generalized to other
real-life examples of obedience (e.g., Nazi
Germany, Mai Lai incident in Vietnam, Kosovo)?
Did Milgrams participants knowingly and
voluntarily harm the learner?
15
Evidence for Destructive Obedience?
What was the mind set of the subjects
(teachers)? How did they interpret the
situation?

• Many cues (what subjects were told, background
  information) that the learner was not going to be
  significantly (permanently) harmed
• Administration of pain was believed as
  important in this context (e.g., for the good of
  science)
• Role of conflicting cues (danger label on the
  shock generator, behavior
• of the learner versus reactions of the
  experimenter)
• Continued presence of the experimenter

16
Issues Regarding Milgrams Findings
In Milgramss studies the experimenter possessed
both expert and legitimate power
Experimenter directed and legitimized the actions
of teacher
Signals arise that causes teacher to question the
study (e.g., the learner may being harmed)
Experimenter says to continue giving shocks
Natural to look to the experimenter to resolve
the situation
17
When participants get close to the danger shock
levels, the learner protests of pain and asks for
the study to stop What question(s) now
confronts the participant?
Has this crossed the line? Am I now causing real
harm to the other person?
From Milgram (1974. p. 23) at this juncture,
it was found, subjects would usually turn to the
experimenter for guidance.
The statements by the experimenter maintained the
perspective that no harm was being inflicted upon
the learner (e.g., no permanent damage was being
done). According to the experimenter, it was
SAFE to continue
18
Participants Questioned Experimenters About
Possible Harm and Responsibility for Any Harm

• Experimenter As I told you before, the shocks
  may be painful, but-
• Teacher But hes hollering. He cant stand it.
  Whats going to happen to him?
• Experimenter (his voice patient, matter-of-fact)
  The experiment requires that you continue,
  Teacher.
• Teacher Aaah, but, unh, Im not going to get
  that man sick in there know what I mean?
• Experimenter Whether the learner likes it or
  not, we must go on, through all the word pairs.
• Teacher I refuse to take responsibility. Hes in
  there hollering!
• Experimenter Its absolutely essential that you
  continue, Teacher.
• Teacher (indicating the unused questions)
  Theres too many left here, I mean, geez, if he
  gets them wrong, theres too many of them left. I
  mean whos going to take the responsibility if
  anything happens to that gentleman?
• Experimenter Im responsible for anything that
  happens to him. Continue please.

... it is possible that the participants
committed a morally questionable action, but did
not knowingly and voluntarily harm an innocent
individual (adapted from Darley, 1995)
19
A Perspective of Principal-Agent
Relationships Which one reflects the one in
Milgrams obedience studies?
Master-Servant relationship (Master specifies the
means and actions of the servant Master
generally assumes responsibility for servants
behavior)
Principle-Independent Contractor relationship
(Principle specifies the goals to be accomplished
and the contractor decides how to get them done)
20
Taxonomy of Principle-Agent Relationships
Surveillance Surveillance
Means-Ends High Low
Goals Specified Independent contractor with possibility of consultation Independent contractor determines own actions
Actions specified Master-servant relationship Master determines actions Master-servant relationship Servant has action discretion
21
Obedience as an an Evolutionary/Developmental
Learning Process (From Darley, 1995)
Does Milgrams research illustrate the beginning
of a developmental process for obedience to
occur? If sanctioned by outside (organizational)
forces, people may independently, calmly, and
willing do what they were initially reluctant to
do (Darley, 1995)

• A general example
• Agent does not obey or alters a procedure to be
  less effective
• Authority figure rejects the actions of the
  agent
• Crisis point (exit or remain in the system)
• If one stays, more likely to obey in the future
  (evil-doing can be learned)

22
Evolution of Evil
The conversion process Over time, and in
conditions conductive to such transformations,
good people can become truly evil ----
dispositionally and morally evil (Darley
1992) Rosenblatt (1994) None of these
executives think of themselves as morally
bankrupt, and I do not think of then individually
in that way, either. What often happens to
people who work for a large, immensely successful
company, however, is that they tend to adopt the
values of the company, regardless of its product.
Loyalty supersedes objectivity .. How good,
smart, decent individuals manage to contribute to
a wicked enterprise is a question that has has
been applied to numerous governments as well as
to industries .. In speaking with these Philip
Morris executives, I felt the presence of the
company with in the person. In the end, I felt
that I was speaking with more company that
person, or perhaps to a person who could no
longer distinguish between the two. In this
situation, in which the company has effectively
absorbed its employees in its moral universe, the
more responsible employees are the company and
thus are to blame. Arendt (1963) Great evil
rises out of ordinary psychological processes
that evolve, usually with a progression along the
continuum of destruction
23
Key Elements for Ongoing Obedience (from Milgram)

1. Binding forces that accrue by the escalating
   features of the actions themselves
2. Tendency for individuals to develop
   self-justifying rationalizations for their
   destructive obedience

Important Overall Impact of Milgrams Obedience
Research --- The need to investigate the
situation closely, especially the subjective
perspective of the participant, especially when
the behavior to be explained appears to be
inexplicable
24
(No Transcript)